The Deep State’s Deception: “I Am Not What I Am.”

There has always been a “Deep State.” It is not a curse restricted to our times. The Deep State” portrays the devilish, cunning attitude of the Elite. They are elected, appointed, or bureaucratically placed. They evolve with an arrogance separating them from the population.

The Deep State should be serving, BUT they are only satisfied with being served!

  • History paints them as ones whose self-image is puffed up, whose self-knowledge is pseudo-intellectualism, and whose self-importance is delusional.
  • History documents their delusional belief that they are irreplaceable.
  • History indicts them as wrapped up in their own bubble-world, ignorant of reality and selfishly insensitive.
  • History documents that they will not escape history’s damning verdict.

With telling insight into the Deep State’s derangement is the 1603 political play’s intrigue. Iago states, “But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve…I am not what I am.”

These six words frame the Deep State’s evil. Iago only pretends to serve and care. He is motivated by his own selfish reasons. He refuses to reveal his true intentions. He confesses that revealing his true agenda would destroy his political career.

Othello is manipulated by the devious Iago into believing that his wife is guilty of adultery with Cassio, whom Othello promoted over Iago. The cunning of Iago results in Othello killing his wife and, after discovering her innocence, killing himself.

The entire storyline is how the Deep State selfishly connives, seeking personal advancement by destroying others.

Iago is one of Shakespeare’s most intriguing villains. His skillful manipulations and disastrous results are exposed. “Iago” is a historical presence in earthly civilizations. Even today, in our present Republic, “Iagos” seeks to rule or ruin!

Keep reading

Told You So: The Deep State Does Exist

From Glenn Reynolds:

Via DataRepublican, we have learned that a group of Democratic governors, retired military and intelligence officers, and former USAID “color revolution” specialists, have for some time been plotting to pull off a color revolution in the United States. Or, to put it more precisely, they have been conspiring to overthrow the constitutionally elected government of the United States, and to replace the Constitution with something completely different.

There’s a lot of data, including videos, recordings, transcripts of Signal chats, etc., but the gist is this: If the Democrats take the House and Senate (and maybe if they don’t), various leftist groups will stage violent protests, intended to press Trump into invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in troops. Once he does, Democratic governors in blue states will denounce his acts as illegal (whether they are or not) and mount resistance on various levels. The goal is to destabilize things enough that they can seize power and replace the Constitution.

(Shaking my head.)

Mmmf. Look, it’s not as if some of us haven’t been warning about something like this for several years now.

The left has spent those same years screaming about its fear of exactly this scenario, just with the roles reversed. By its take, President Donald Trump sends in the troops, democracy dies, and so on. I forget where, but I’ve already written that the only way we’d ever get there would be another “Summer of Love” with burning cities, shot cops, and the whole bit. Turns out the deep state was writing the same script, but actually acting on it.

As usual with Democrats, it’s not what caused the reaction from the right; it’s the reaction itself that they label the problem.

The researcher known as DataRepublican says an insider handed her thousands of pages of documents and hundreds of recordings. By her account and others’, somebody in the network had an AI note-taker recording and archiving calls going back to 2023, then left the archive sitting in a publicly accessible Google Drive. Color-revolution experts, ladies and gentlemen.

She has been releasing the material in chunks, and a few things in it are hard to wave away. In one of those recordings, a former USAID hand who co-founded a group called “Renew American Democracy” walks through three “crisis scenarios or democratic emergencies” people should prepare for: an election meltdown, “potential militarization, the Insurrection Act,” and an “acute democratic crisis.”

Another recording describes an options memo for governors on how they might respond if the federal government came to be regarded as illegitimate, including coordination among states and communication with foreign governments. A speaker in another call describes meetings with “Governors Safeguarding Democracy,” a forum of Democratic governors. That group, in case you don’t know, was started about a week after Donald Trump was elected. Its co-chairs at launch were Gov. JB Pritzker (D-Ill.) and Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). As far as I’ve been able to find out, these are still at the head table.

Keep reading

Here’s One October Surprise, Anyway…

“The Left has always preferred the ashes of its own making to the inheritance of better men.” – Celina101 on X

By now, everybody and his uncle interested in public matters has probably read that a claque of current-and-former agency officials, ex-USAID busybodies, military officers, activist academics, Democratic Party paladins, and freelance communist jihadis has been exposed plotting the overthrow of the US government. The plot was reported by the diligent “X” blogger Jennica Pounds under her nom-de-plume “Data Republican,” who lately received an enormous document-and-recording dump courtesy of careless color revolutionaries who recorded themselves and saved doc files against orders, the dumb bunnies.

Ms. Pounds, an experienced software engineer turned political detective, came to public attention early in 2025 when she assisted Elon Musk’s DOGE operation in building a database of NGO money trails emanating from the colossal USAID grant matrix – after which her identity was “doxed” by Rolling Stone and she underwent a harassment campaign.

Of course, USAID was abolished early in the Trump 2.0 admin, and a lot of the “activists” defenestrated from it moved into scores of NGOs, with their salaries switched from taxpayer funding to the bank accounts of George Soros-connected orgs and sundry other shady characters like Shanghai-based Neville Roy Singham. These are the NGOs forever puling about “our democracy,” meaning their drive to punish, persecute, and push around Americans who demur from a communist future. Data Republican says her reporting so far is “only the beginning” of much more detailed and alarming disclosures.

Coincidentally this week, their cover was also blown by Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI and former CIA analyst), who told an audience at the U. of Chicago that the Democrats intend to go after and wreck any young person who might think about working in the current administration. Ms. Slotkin, you might recall, was in that video put out a year ago – with five other US lawmakers – telling military officers they should-and-must refuse “illegal” orders. Sedition-lite, it looked like at the time.

Before we get into the meat of their playbook for us, and what might happen in response, let’s just dox a few of the characters involved. You should know who they are (and maybe the DOJ should, too). They are not necessarily the usual suspects you’ve read about before like the omnipresent lawfare ninjas, Norm Eisen, Marc Elias, Mary McCord, et al., so busy filing frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts.

For instance (as reported by one Eric Schwalm on “X”), there’s Erica Chenoweth, the transvestite professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of government who acts as chief strategist and hub for the “color revolution” planned by the United Democracy Alliance cabal she is associated with. Ms. (or Mr.?) Chenoweth’s big contribution to Jacobin thought is “the 3.5 rule” which says that if you can get that percentage of people out on the streets making a ruckus, you can successfully overthrow a government.

Then there’s Danielle Reiff, former USAID, now co-founder of the Democracy Renewal Group, Renew American Democracy, and Renew to Thrive orgs. . . very verbal on video laying out the exact procedures for the US color revolution. And there’s Rear Admiral Michael E. Smith (Ret.) who runs a network of over a thousand retired military officers called National Security Leaders for America. He’s in charge of “role-playing” exercises in preparation for post-election hijinks. Then there’s Julia Roig, founder of the Horizons Project who is responsible for “building relational infrastructure so that disparate groups can act in concert without a single hierarchical command.” Then there’s Maria Stephan, co-author, with Erica Chenoweth, of the sedition tract Why Civil Resistance Works. Then there’s Brenden Halloran, former USAID, now with the Renew to Thrive org, responsible for “accountability ecosystems, overcoming fragmentation among groups, and long-term sequencing of reforms.” Then there’s Walt Roberts, also on the Renew to Thrive team, plus the Mediators Foundation and the Inter-Movement Impact Project. Then there’s Laura Adams, also former USAID, now in Renew to Thrive and PACT, whose mission is to turn strategy papers into operational plans. Then there’s Zoe Marks, also in Harvard’s Kennedy School, a “scenario-planner” for Horizons and United Democracy Alliance. Then there’s “cohesion” strategist Paul Zeitz, co-founder of UnifyUSA, partner with Danielle Reiff on Renew to Thrive, and active in NGOs Renew to Thrive and National Security Leaders for America. There’s the bunch. Now you know.

Keep reading

Deep State of the World

What we’ve heard about so far today — and will continue to hear about — is not a collection of separate problems. It’s all one problem: the deep state of the world is trying to consolidate the entire world into a one-world government and has developed many different mechanisms of control to achieve that end. A major part of that initiative is to cause all our institutions to fail us. 

What you’ve heard about the fundamental problems in education, healthcare, agriculture, government regulation, the news media, censorship, and propaganda is all part of that same agenda, in my view.

And the idea of “Earth System Governance“ has become an academic discipline, albeit hidden from most people.

This agenda came out to the world around 1970 when the Club of Rome published its report, titled Limits to Growth.

The first goal was to create the narrative that climate change, environmental degradation, and resource depletion posed an existential threat to humanity, in order to frighten the public into funding and complying with a new set of priorities.

The second goal was to use international organizations like the UN and WHO to slowly siphon power from individual countries under the guise of environmental protection. The UN has over 30 agencies prepared to step in and impose regulations and taxation on international industries such as shipping, which is actually being done now. The UN even wants to create its own system of law.

Keep reading

Your Enemy, The Deep State

Many people would like political solutions to their problems. In other words, they want the government to force others to do what they prefer.

However, people with any moral sense recognize that can only create more problems. Clever players, especially those with Machiavellian ethics, use the government as a tool. But they prefer to do so from behind a curtain.

They know that it’s more effective, and a lot safer, to pull the puppet’s strings from offstage. They sometimes step into the limelight, depending on the circumstances and the depth of their personal narcissism. But they’re all about two things: Power and money. Call them the Deep State.

Once a country develops an entrenched Deep State, only a revolution or a dictatorship can eliminate it. And probably only in a small country.

The American Deep State is a powerful informal network which controls most institutions. You won’t read about it in the news because it controls the news. Politicians won’t talk about it, or even admit that it exists. That would be like a mobster discussing murder and robbery on the 6 o’clock news. You could say the Deep State is hidden, but it’s hidden in plain sight.

The Deep State is involved in almost every negative thing that’s happening right now. It’s essential to know what it’s all about. 

The State

The Deep State uses and hides behind the State itself.

Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book. They think it has something to do with “We the People” electing a Jimmy Stewart character to represent them. That ideal has always been a pernicious fiction because it idealizes, sanitizes, and legitimizes an intrinsically evil and destructive institution, which is based on force. As Mao once said, political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. 

The Deep State

The Deep State controls the State, i.e., the government. It’s as old as history itself. But the term “Deep State” originated in Turkey, which is appropriate since it’s the heir to the totally corrupt Byzantine and Ottoman empires. And in the best Byzantine manner, our Deep State has insinuated itself throughout the fabric of what once was America. Its tendrils reach from Washington down to every part of civil society. Like a metastasized cancer, it can no longer be easily eradicated.

Keep reading

“I Miss the Old Trump” Is A Fantasy. He Has Always Been A Tool of the Deep State

A growing number of MAGA voters are finding Donald Trump to be a colossal, dystopian disappointment. Many of these former supporters have taken to social media to wonder, ‘What happened to him?’

According to this perception of reality, Donald Trump was once America’s savior—a champion of the people, a warrior for freedom and against powerful interests, and the president of peace. But then something happened. He was compromised in his second term. He stopped caring and started selling out. Their hero fell from grace to join the swamp he once worked to drain. He abandoned America First principles to bow to Israel and AIPAC. He sold out to Big Tech, and he betrayed the MAHA crowd (to name a few examples).

I’ve seen countless expressions of this sentiment across social media platforms.

“I miss this guy…To see what he’s become today depresses me greatly,” reads one tweet accompanying a clip of Trump in 2016 criticizing the war in Iraq. A quote tweet of this clip says, “Me too, all of us OG real MAGA miss the guy we actually voted for 3 times, not sure what we have now.”

An Instagram reel titled “Trump before PAC money,” which features the same old Trump clip, has comments that feature a similar sentiment:

“He eventually became a real politician.”

“Before Don sold out! I just can’t believe he sold us out. He was a good first term president and terrible 2nd term.”

The only problem with these views? They’re rooted in a grotesquely false premise: that Trump was ever the anti-establishment hero he painted himself to be. The “old Trump” never existed. It was all smoke, mirrors, and rhetoric that told voters what they longed to hear (in a telling instance of this disconnect from reality, Trump received PAC money in 2016, when he made the comments in the featured clip, and was actively courting such donors).

Keep reading

The Bunker State: The Government Will Survive, but Will the Constitution?

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.“—Theodore Roosevelt

What began publicly as Donald Trump’s lavish, taxpayer-funded vision of a gilded White House ballroom is now being justified by the administration—in and out of court—as a matter of national security.

To President Trump, it seems, a ballroom by any other name is a bunker.

And what a bunker it is.

Court documents indicate the massive subterranean military complex being constructed five stories beneath the White House grounds will include bomb shelters, a hospital, “top secret military structures and equipment, military-grade venting, a single integrated air conditioning and heating system, sniper nests and a drone port on top.”

Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, has explicitly invoked “continuity-of-government interests“ in defending the ballroom/bunker project, arguing that the reinforced underground military installation is necessary to ensure uninterrupted presidential command during an attack or global crisis.

The White House, however, already has a bunker built for precisely this purpose.

According to former officials, a nuclear-hardened facility buried more than 60 feet underground was secretly completed during the Obama administration. It can reportedly shelter dozens of officials for weeks and provide the president and senior officials with a secure command center during an extreme national-security crisis.

Which raises an obvious question: if the White House already has a nuclear-hardened Continuity of Government bunker, why does it need another one?

What threat justifies a new five-story military complex beneath the People’s House—one large enough to include bomb shelters, a hospital, military infrastructure, sniper positions and drone facilities? And if this is really about national security, why has so much of the project been wrapped around a ballroom that the administration initially presented as something quite different?

It is telling that they are building it at breakneck speed.

Keep reading

A Top FBI Official’s Remarks About Running a Secret Government Are Now More Chilling

It didn’t happen all at once, but the timelines and the new document dumps paint a disturbing picture of what we knew would appear on the canvas long before Trump’s second presidency and the disclosures that exposed the whole deep state circus. We have former presidents, including Obama, ordering intelligence assessments to thread in Russian collusion nonsense; a former CIA director who lied about how the Steele Dossier, the document responsible for this hoax, was used in analyzing the intelligence; and the media’s incessant and destructive crusade to make this ruse legitimate. They failed because there was no evidence, and every bombshell was debunked within hours. 

Given the latest trove of documents about the FBI’s investigation into former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and his Chinese tryst with Fang Fang, who everyone knew was an intelligence agent, the pattern emerges: the FBI truly was running a secret government of sorts. They eschewed investigations into foreign influence involving Democrats, the Biden family, and the Clintons, and redirected all efforts to legitimize shoddy evidence and outright lies about Trump.

Again, you knew this, but now you have mountains of paperwork and damning emails from top FBI officials who admitted to “basically running a shadow government across the FBI.” That official reported to then-FBI Director Chris Wray daily. Even worse, under Operation Round River, the FBI targeted those who brought forward evidence regarding allegations of foreign influence and corruption on the Hunter Biden laptop (via Public):

Many of the FBI’s abuses of power have been reported before. There was coverage of how the FBI received warrants to spy on Trump aide Carter Page based on a July 2016 email that the Bureau, in five separate interviews, never once asked Page about. Reporters covered the FBI’s claim in its warrant application that Page had “met with” senior Russian officials when he had, in fact, only shaken a deputy prime minister’s hand, and spoken briefly with a staffer. And journalists wrote about how the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz documented 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions across four FISA applications targeting Page.

But now, new files released today reveal that the FBI walked away from a far stronger case against Rep. Eric Swalwell. The FBI opened its investigation in 2014 and named as its objective to “obtain sufficient evidence to indict and arrest Swalwell and Fang for violations of campaign finance laws and quid pro quo exchanges.” Christine Fang, known as Fang Fang, was a Chinese national whose parents the FBI identified as “known MSS intelligence officers,” a reference to China’s Ministry of State Security, that nation’s equivalent to the CIA.

The new files show Swalwell admitted to FBI agents that he had “physical relations with Fang” on multiple occasions. They also show that he confirmed that Fang referred interns to him, whom his staff placed in his campaign and congressional offices. And agents traced 2013 straw donations through conduits back “to Fang herself,” making her, in the Bureau’s words, an “illegal source of campaign contributions.” And yet on February 8, 2017, the FBI dropped Swalwell as a subject and narrowed the case to Fang alone.

Keep reading

Declassified Docs Show Deep State Letting Chinese Espionage Slide If It Helps Democrats

his week the FBI released newly declassified files on former Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Chinese national Christine Fang (Fang Fang). There are two heavily redacted packets: one from the San Francisco Division’s 2014 “Freshman Fifteen” public-corruption probe and the other covering counterintelligence and recruitment efforts. These documents fill in details that earlier reporting left incomplete and underscore how institutional choices allowed a suspected Chinese intelligence operative to operate with relative impunity.

Here is a brief summary of the case: Fang, a Chinese national who lived in the U.S. until 2015, was the daughter of officers in China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS). The FBI suspected her of being an MSS-linked operative and unsuccessfully attempted to recruit her as a source in 2013 and 2014.

Fang facilitated conduit contributions to Swalwell’s campaigns, contradicting the 2020 Axios report that claimed there was no evidence of illegal donations. She also placed interns in Swalwell’s office and maintained a sexual relationship with him. FBI agents built a case against both Fang and Swalwell and provided regular updates to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section (PIN), then led by Jack Smith, who later oversaw the special counsel investigations into Donald Trump. Declassified files now indicate the case was more serious than previously understood. It remains unclear why the DOJ did not arrest or charge Fang.

Swalwell cut ties with Fang after agents gave him a defensive briefing in early 2015. Fang fled to China in May that same year. She remains in China and is barred from re-entering the United States. The DOJ closed the Fang/Swalwell case without action against either party.

The declassified documents reveal a broader reluctance among institutions to address Chinese influence operations targeting Democratic officials. Field agents reported Fang’s illegal fundraising and other suspicious activities to Jack Smith’s Public Integrity Section. Yet, no decisive steps were taken before the suspected operative left the country. Once Fang was safely in China, the chance to prosecute or further disrupt her network disappeared. Closing the case without charges left the underlying security risk unresolved.

Democratic leaders further complicated the situation. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly supported Swalwell and kept him on the House Intelligence Committee for years, suggesting that party considerations took precedence over the counterintelligence warning the FBI had already delivered.

The Swalwell/Fang case is not an isolated incident. The same FBI San Francisco Division had earlier identified former Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s longtime driver and California staffer as a Chinese intelligence recruit. He reported on local politics to handlers linked to the San Francisco Chinese consulate for years before the bureau notified Feinstein in 2013. Sen. Feinstein dismissed him, yet no charges were filed. The breach occurred while she chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of the most sensitive oversight positions in government. Yet, her career proceeded without interruption or lasting professional consequence.

More recently, Linda Sun, a senior aide to Govs. Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul, was charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the Chinese government. The case ended in a mistrial.

Keep reading

Deep Capture

Woodrow Wilson holds a distinction no other American president has: he earned a Ph.D., completing his doctorate in political science and history at Johns Hopkins University in 1886. That same year, he wrote an essay called “The Study of Administration,” later published in the inaugural volume of Political Science Quarterly. Historians widely credit this essay as the founding document of public administration as a formal academic field, and Wilson himself as the father of that discipline.

Wilson’s central argument was that government should be split into two separate domains: politics, where elected officials set broad goals and policy direction, and administration, a technical, expert-driven sphere that should be run with “large powers and unhampered discretion” and insulated from day-to-day political interference. 

Wilson suggested that government ought to be removed from the political process…in other words: “Democracy is too important to be left to voters.” He explicitly encouraged American reformers to study European administrative models – including Prussia’s – for lessons in efficiency, arguing that the US had fallen behind other nations in developing a science of government administration. 

Later scholars have debated how far Wilson actually intended this separation to go, and some interpret his argument as calling for administrators to be almost entirely removed from political accountability. His essay laid the intellectual groundwork for what would become the modern professional civil service – insulated from patronage and run by career administrators rather than political appointees or elected officials.

The Frankfurt School’s American Exile

Nearly 50 years later, a very different intellectual tradition found refuge in the same city that Wilson’s ideas would eventually help administer. Max Horkheimer became director of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany in 1930, leading a group of thinkers who developed what became known as Critical Theory. Its core members included Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Leo Löwenthal. Critical Theory is a philosophical framework that analyzes power structures and social inequalities.  

Developed by the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and 1940s, it shifted Marxism from a strict economic focus to a critique of culture, media, and modern society. Critical Theory was a different way of looking at philosophy; where philosophy was a search for truth – trying to explain phenomena and things that were not easily proven by science (ethics for example) – Critical Theory shifted to look at philosophy specifically through the lens of Marxism. It became no longer a search for truth but a means of propagandizing, which some would argue was a betrayal of philosophy.

When the Nazis seized power in 1933, Horkheimer was forced to relocate the group first to Geneva and then to New York, where it formed a loose affiliation with Columbia University in 1934–35. Horkheimer’s actual scholarly project – laid out in works like Dialectic of Enlightenment and Eclipse of Reason – described how instrumental reason, mass culture, and authoritarianism are able to take hold in modern societies. 

It was also between 1933 and 1937 that several regulatory agencies were established that would come to form the backbone of the modern Administrative State.

Port Huron and the Old/New Left Split

By the early 1960s, the American left was largely defined by an older tradition: labor unions, industrial organizing, and class-based politics rooted in the fights of the 1930s and ’40s. In June 1962, a group of Socialist Organization representatives, student activists, organized labor unions, civil rights leaders, and foreign observers gathered in Port Huron, Michigan, and produced a document that would come to mark a generational break from that tradition.

Students for a Democratic Society had grown out of the Student League for Industrial Democracy, the youth wing of an older Socialist educational group called the League for Industrial Democracy, which itself traced back to the Intercollegiate Socialist Society founded in 1905. In early 1960, that student branch renamed itself Students for a Democratic Society. 

The manifesto produced at Port Huron was drafted primarily by Tom Hayden, a University of Michigan student and former editor of the Michigan Daily, working from ideas that blended the sociology of Columbia’s C. Wright Mills and Walter Reuther with the direct-action tactics of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The week-long meeting brought together groups who wrote, debated, and voted on a 60-page document. Notably, it took place at a United Auto Workers retreat, with the UAW under Reuther’s leadership covering a range of the convention’s costs. Inside circles among Reuther’s contemporaries referred to it as “The Long Journey.” 

Keep reading